[Federal Register: October 5, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 194)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 50843-50851]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr05oc01-15]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 18
RIN 1018-AH72
Import of Polar Bear Trophies From Canada: Change in the Finding
for the M'Clintock Channel Population
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Affirmation of emergency interim rule as final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service is adopting the emergency
interim rule published on January 10, 2001, as a final rule without
substantive change. This rule amended our regulations, under the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), on the import of polar bears (Ursus
maritimus) taken by sport hunters in the M'Clintock Channel population,
Nunavut Territory, Canada. Current information indicates that this
population has severely declined and harvest quotas have not ensured a
sustainable population level. In the emergency interim rule, we found
that the M'Clintock Channel population no longer meets the import
requirements of the MMPA and amended our regulations to reflect that
bears sport hunted in this population after the 1999/2000 Canadian
hunting season will no longer be eligible for import under the 1997
finding which approved this population for multiple harvest seasons. In
addition, the emergency interim rule updated our regulations to reflect
the formation of the new territory of Nunavut and notified the public
on the lifting by Canada of the harvest moratorium in the Viscount
Melville Sound polar bear population. This final rule presents the best
available information on the M'Clintock Channel population and
addresses comments received on the emergency interim rule.
DATES: This final rule is effective on January 10, 2001.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Teiko Saito, Chief, Division of
Management Authority, Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax
Drive, Room 700, Arlington, Virginia 22203; telephone (703) 358-2093;
fax (703) 358-2280; e-mail fw9ia__dma@fws.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The 1994 amendments to the MMPA (section 104(c)(5)(A)) allow for
the issuance of permits to import sport-hunted polar bear trophies from
Canada
[[Page 50844]]
when we can make certain legal and biological findings. On February 18,
1997, we published regulations in the Federal Register (62 FR 7302)
that established standards for the issuance of permits to allow the
import of sport-hunted polar bear trophies (50 CFR 18.30). The
regulations contain aggregate findings applicable for multiple harvest
seasons for five populations, including M'Clintock Channel, as follows:
(a) Canada has a sport-hunting program that allows us to determine
before import that each polar bear was legally taken; (b) Canada has a
monitored and enforced program that is consistent with the purposes of
the 1973 International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears;
(c) Canada has a sport-hunting program that is based on scientifically
sound quotas ensuring the maintenance of the affected population stock
at a sustainable level for certain populations; and (d) the export of
sport-hunted trophies from Canada and their subsequent import into the
United States would be consistent with the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and would
not likely contribute to illegal trade of bear parts. In a subsequent
final rule on January 11, 1999 (64 FR 1529), we made aggregate findings
that approved two additional populations.
In Canada, management of polar bears has been delegated to the
provinces and territories. However, the Canadian Wildlife Service
(CWS), Canada's national wildlife agency, maintains an active research
program and is involved in the management of populations that are
shared between jurisdictions, particularly between Canada and other
nations. In addition, Native Land Claims have resulted in co-management
boards for most of Canada's polar bear populations. The Nunavut
Wildlife Management Board (NWMB) is the main instrument of wildlife
management in the Nunavut Settlement Area, while the Government of
Nunavut (GNUN), through the Minister of Sustainable Development,
retains the ultimate responsibility for both the conservation of
wildlife and economic development in the Nunavut Territory. The co-
management of Nunavut's polar bear populations also includes the CWS,
regional wildlife organizations, and hunters and trappers
organizations. The Federal/Provincial/Territorial Polar Bear Technical
Committee (PBTC) and Polar Bear Administrative Committee meet annually
to ensure a coordinated management process among these parties.
The basis of the Government of Northwest Territories (GNWT) and
GNUN polar bear management program is that the human-caused killing of
polar bears (e.g., harvest, defense, or incidental) must remain within
the sustainable yield, with the anticipation of slow growth for any
population. The program has several components including: (a) Use of
scientific studies to determine and monitor changes in population size
and establish population boundaries; (b) involvement of the resource
users and incorporation of traditional knowledge to enrich and
complement scientific studies; (c) harvest data collection and a
license tracking system; and (d) enforcement measures through
regulations and management agreements.
Regulations and management agreements between the GNWT, GNUN, and
Native Land Claim beneficiaries provide the rules for polar bear
harvest in the Northwest Territories (NWT) and Nunavut. The hunting
season opens August 1 and closes May 31 the following year. Except for
defense kills, no harvest usually occurs before February. The hunting
season is limited by factors such as the lack of sea ice, the number of
daylight hours, and winter weather conditions. Sport hunts are
typically conducted in the spring, between March and May. Sport hunting
of polar bears is presently legal only in NWT and Nunavut and includes
additional requirements. All sport hunts must be conducted under
Canadian jurisdiction and be guided by a Native hunter. In addition,
transportation during the hunt must be by dog sled, the tags must come
from the community quota, and quota tags from unsuccessful sport hunts
may not be used again. All bears taken by sport hunters must be
accounted for within existing quota tags. Not all communities
participate in sport hunting as it reduces hunting opportunities for
local hunters. You should refer to the February 18, 1997 (62 FR 7302),
and January 11, 1999 (64 FR 1529), rules for more extensive information
on Canada's polar bear management program.
In an emergency interim rule effective and published in the Federal
Register on January 10, 2001 (66 FR 1901), we amended our regulations
under the MMPA in 50 CFR 18.30 on the import of polar bears taken by
sport hunters in the M'Clintock Channel population, Nunavut, Canada.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551-553), our normal
practice is to publish regulations with a 30-day delay in effective
date. But in this case, we used the ``good cause'' exemptions under 5
U.S.C. 553(b) and (d)(3) to issue the emergency interim rule without
first invoking the usual notice and public comment procedure and to
make the rule effective upon publication for the following reasons: (1)
Official information submitted by the government of Canada showed that
the M'Clintock Channel population no longer meets the import
requirements of the MMPA; (2) as a matter of fairness to the regulated
community, it was necessary to put the public on notice immediately
that bears sport hunted in the M'Clintock Channel population after May
31, 2000, would no longer be eligible for import under the finding
which approved this population for multiple harvest seasons; and (3) it
would be contrary to the public interest to maintain regulatory
findings that purport to allow the import of these polar bear trophies
when those findings are no longer consistent with the MMPA.
We are adopting the emergency interim rule as a final rule without
substantive change. In the emergency interim rule, we found that the
M'Clintock Channel population no longer meets the import requirements
of the MMPA and amended our regulations to reflect that bears sport
hunted in this population after May 31, 2000, the end of the 1999/2000
Canadian hunting season, will no longer be eligible for import under
the 1997 finding which approved this population for multiple harvest
seasons. In addition, the emergency interim rule updated our
regulations to reflect the formation of the new territory of Nunavut
and notified the public on the lifting by Canada of the harvest
moratorium in the Viscount Melville Sound polar bear population.
The use of an emergency interim rule allowed us to take action
based on the new information for the M'Clintock Channel population,
quickly inform the public about the change to the regulations, and, at
the same time, ask for comments from the public. We received comments
on the emergency interim rule from the CWS, Conservation Force, Safari
Club International (SCI), and the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS). We
received submissions from the Department of Sustainable Development,
GNUN, and the NWMB after the close of the comment period, and this
information is presented in the preamble of this final rule because it
clarifies historical information, population analysis, and current
management of the M'Clintock Channel polar bear population. However, we
note that, although the information was important in giving an accurate
description of polar bear status
[[Page 50845]]
and management in Nunavut, it did not affect the outcome of the final
rule. Finally, comments were also provided by the Marine Mammal
Commission (MMC) and its Committee of Scientific Advisors, as part of
the consultative process required by the MMPA. Our summary and response
to public comments are given in the sections in the preamble that
discuss the issues.
What Is the Status of the M'Clintock Channel Polar Bear Population?
As described in our February 18, 1997 (62 FR 7302), final rule,
Canada estimated the M'Clintock Channel population in the mid-1970s to
be 900 polar bears based on a 6-year mark-recapture population study.
According to the GNUN, this study was part of the first Territorial
Government polar bear population inventory conducted in the Central
Arctic. The existing mark-recapture population analysis models at that
time were based on simplifying assumptions and did not have the benefit
of current genetic and satellite telemetry technology. Originally, the
M'Clintock Channel and Gulf of Boothia areas were not identified as
distinct units and the combined estimate for these two
``subpopulations'' was 1,081 bears. Due to the known bias of non-
representative sampling, the estimate was later increased to 900 for
the M'Clintock Channel and 900 for the Gulf of Boothia, based on the
assumption that harvests at that time were sustainable. Subsequently,
local hunters advised that 700 might be a more accurate estimate for
the M'Clintock Channel population. Under a Local Management Agreement
between Inuit communities that share this population, the harvest quota
for this area was revised to levels expected to achieve slow growth
based on the population estimate of 700 polar bears. We approved this
population although Canada considered the population estimate
information as ``poor.'' We made this decision because Canada, in
conjunction with the local communities, agreed to the reduction (from
900 to 700) in the population estimate, hunting had been at a 2 male to
1 female sex ratio for several years, and there was a management
agreement in place.
Canada initiated a new study of the polar bear population in
M'Clintock Channel in 1998 to assess the population size currently
being used to calculate harvest quotas. At the 2000 PBTC meeting, the
GNUN presented preliminary results of the mark-recapture analysis based
on data collected during 1998 and 1999. Although cautioning that the
results were incomplete, the polar bear managers estimated that the
newly revised population size for the M'Clintock Channel population was
between 360 and 390 bears, considerably lower than the previous
estimate of 700. The GNUN considered the reliability of the new
estimate ``poor,'' and noted that a more accurate estimate was to be
calculated following the end of the 3-year mark-recapture study.
Following the end of the study in 2000, the GNUN provided us with
preliminary results based on data collected in 1998, 1999, and 2000.
The recalculated population estimate of polar bears in M'Clintock
Channel was between 238 and 399 bears, with 288 as the best preliminary
estimate. Based on this updated estimate, the GNUN recalculated the
maximum sustainable harvest that would support the population at its
current level, with no population growth, at 8 bears per year (4 males
and 4 females). The quota since 1993 has been set at between 32 and 34
bears. The GNUN indicated that, at that rate of harvest, the population
was declining and would be reduced to zero in 10 years. With no
harvest, the population would increase at only 4 percent annually.
Thus, recovery of this population will be slow and each year of over-
harvest will delay recovery time by a minimum of 2 years. The GNUN
noted that it would be evaluating future management goals for this
population such as identifying a target population recovery level. At
the 2001 PBTC meeting, the GNUN estimated that the time for an
unharvested polar bear population to double is about 25 years, and
indicated that a long-term moratorium may be necessary for the
M'Clintock Channel population to recover its former numbers.
In 2001, the GNUN conducted more stringent analyses of the 1998 to
2000 mark-recapture data. Using two different stratified mark-recapture
models, estimates of 455 (standard error = 215) and 243 (standard error
= 49) bears were calculated for the M'Clintock Channel population. The
GNUN was unable to produce satisfactory estimates using these models,
which they attribute to capture heterogeneity. Based on an average of
the best analysis models following Burnham and Anderson (1998), the
GNUN calculated what they consider the current best estimate, 367 bears
(standard error = 191), for the M'Clintock Channel population. We note
that the GNUN's re-analysis of the base core population numbers
resulted in an increase from the preliminary estimate of 288 bears, as
reported in the emergency interim rule, to the current best estimate of
367 bears. This increase is not sufficient to remove our concern that
the M'Clintock Channel population has been severely reduced, nor affect
the outcome of this final rule. We consider the mid-1970's estimate of
900 bears to be the best information available for the historical
baseline of this population. Even though each subsequent revision of
the population estimate was considered ``poor'' by Canada, we have
accepted the updated estimates as the best information available at the
time. We conclude that the current best estimate of 367 bears indicates
that the M'Clintock Channel population has severely declined over time,
and is consistent with our findings in the emergency interim rule.
Further, the CWS reports that extensive new data analysis and field
work need to be conducted before revisions to the population estimate
for the M'Clintock Channel can be made. The GNUN suggests that at least
2 to 3 additional years of sampling will be required before accurate
estimates of survival and population numbers can be obtained. The GNUN
plans to continue the mark-recapture study and collect additional
population data as early as 2002. The CWS has indicated that it will
continue to provide new population information to us as it becomes
available.
How Are Polar Bears Managed in the M'Clintock Channel Population?
The quota for the M'Clintock channel population, based on a
population estimate of 700 bears, has been set at between 32 and 34
bears since 1993. At the time the emergency interim rule was published,
Canada had made no adjustment to the quota to reflect the new
population information since polar bears are co-managed with local
communities through agreements and any modification requires community
consultation. Discussions with local communities to develop the best
plan of action were completed earlier this year.
On January 16, 2001, the Minister of Sustainable Development, GNUN,
accepted the decision of the NWMB to reduce the quota for the
M'Clintock Channel population to 12 polar bears (8 males and 4 females)
for the 2000/2001 harvest year followed by a moratorium on harvest in
2001/2002. The NWMB based their decision on the community recommended
quota of 12 animals and the available information that suggested if the
full quota of 12 were taken for the 2000/2001 harvest season, the
average harvest over the 2 years would be 6, which was within the
harvest limits considered by Canada to be sustainable for the lowest
population estimate. The GNUN explained that the quota
[[Page 50846]]
reduction in 2000/2001 and harvest moratorium in 2001/2002 will provide
time for further community consultation while protecting the population
from additional decline.
The NWMB further explained that, as part of the co-management
process, any change in the quota must not rely solely on scientific
data but must also take into account traditional knowledge. The NWMB
will work with their co-management partners to ensure traditional
knowledge information is collected and integrated with the scientific
information in order to better manage the M'Clintock Channel polar bear
population. The NWMB also noted that both cultural and economic aspects
must be taken into account in the recovery plan, as a small quota, even
in a severely reduced population, may be used as an effective
conservation measure. The GNUN agreed that enhanced economic value is a
positive factor in co-management conservation strategy. Over the next
year, the GNUN and NWMB will work with their co-management partners to
assess the situation for the M'Clintock Channel population and develop
a long-term strategy and recovery goals.
The SCI and Conservation Force recommended that our decision take
into account the benefits of sport hunting which provide conservation
incentives, management revenues, and income for the local communities.
We recognize that, under certain conditions, sport hunting can be a
useful management tool and Canada has incorporated it into their
management program for polar bears. However, the MMPA requires us to
consider not whether sport hunting is beneficial but whether Canada's
management is based on scientifically sound quotas that ensure the
maintenance of the population at a sustainable level. Long-term
management programs based on sustainability will yield greater economic
benefits than short-term programs that are not based on sound
principles of resource optimization.
Although the SCI agreed that the current data indicate either a
reduced population or a previous overestimate, they felt that our
emergency interim rule was premature and arbitrary because it resulted
in a complete loss of sport-hunting revenue for the local communities
and interfered with the co-management process. SCI and NWMB suggested
that we modify the emergency interim rule to allow the import of sport-
hunted polar bears taken under the reduced quota because a complete ban
on import would be an economic and cultural detraction to local people.
We disagree with the SCI that our decision was arbitrary. Our decision
was based on the best available information which indicates the
M'Clintock Channel population has been severely reduced and that this
population no longer meets the statutory criteria of the MMPA under
which imports may be authorized. While we recognize Canada's co-
management system, and its need to balance cultural, economic, and
conservation concerns, we must make our decision on specific criteria
in the MMPA set out by Congress. Indeed, we consider this population to
have severely declined from its historical population of 900 bears, and
so cannot make the finding that the population is being maintained at a
sustainable level, even under the reduced quota. Under the purposes and
conservation goals of the MMPA, once the population has declined so
severely, any take of bears would not be considered sustainable. The
reduced quota set by Canada may indeed keep this population from
declining any further, but does not work toward recovering the
population to its historical population. The GNUN has estimated that,
with no harvest, the population would increase at only 4 percent
annually and take about 25 years to double. Thus, it is clear that the
recovery of the population will be slow and, even with a long-term
moratorium, it will be many years before the M'Clintock Channel
population will be able to recover its former numbers. The MMC agreed
with us that it does not appear that the management of the M'Clintock
population has been based on scientifically sound quotas ensuring the
maintenance of the population at a sustainable level as required by the
MMPA. We note that the GNUN wrote that its goal is the sustainable use
of polar bear populations, and the MMPA import criteria do not conflict
with its current or developing polar bear management policies. The GNUN
plans to identify a target recovery level as it evaluates future
management goals for this population.
The HSUS and MMC supported our decision to change the import status
of the M'Clintock Channel polar bear population. However, the HSUS
expressed concern that Canada failed to recognize the downward
population trend of the M'Clintock Channel population. It believes this
situation reflects on Canada's entire management program, and maintains
there is no assurance that any of Canada's polar bear populations are
being managed sustainably. The MMC recommended that Canada use more
conservative population estimates in setting quotas and conduct more
frequent, rigorous population assessments, especially for populations
where the data is considered ``fair'' or ``poor'' in order to ensure
that Canada's polar bear populations are being managed sustainably.
Although we have concerns about the M'Clintock Channel population,
we disagree that the decline in this population implies that Canada is
not managing their polar bear populations sustainably. Canada has a
robust management program (see previous Federal Register notices (62 FR
7302 and 64 FR 1529), that is periodically reviewed by the PBTC and the
IUCN (World Conservation Union) Polar Bear Specialist Group). There has
been considerable discussion of Canada's population management, and
Canada continues to look at new models and research data to better
manage their polar bear populations. This adaptive management is
important because polar bears are characterized by low reproductive
potential, long life spans, low density, and wide distribution and are
sensitive to harvest rates.
The GNUN emphasizes that the severe decline of the M'Clintock
Channel population is not characteristic of Canada's management program
and assures us that they are taking steps to correct the system. At the
2001 PBTC meeting, the GNUN presented a new management approach under
development that they anticipate will reduce the frequency and impact
of population reduction to more acceptable levels. The new approach,
based on population viability analysis (PVA), considers the
reproduction potential of the population, the uncertainty of the
underlying demographic information, and statistical uncertainty when
making harvest level determinations. The GNUN anticipates examining
options that include scaling back harvest rates in small populations
while performing more frequent inventories of larger populations. A
systematic integration of traditional knowledge with scientific
information through the development of a categorical range of harvest
policies that incorporates the perceptions of the hunters is also
planned. The GNUN anticipates that the enhanced PVA approach will help
them to identify where they need to modify harvest levels, prior to the
next population inventory, due to changing environmental conditions or
optimistic population estimates.
Table 1 summarizes the polar bear harvest in the M'Clintock Channel
population during the 1989/1990 to 1999/2000 harvest seasons. Sport
harvest in M'Clintock Channel began in
[[Page 50847]]
1991 with no sport hunts conducted from 1992 through 1994. A total of
288 bears were harvested over the past 11 years, ranging from an annual
harvest of 17 to 37 bears. Of these bears, 65 (57 male, 7 female, 1
unknown) were sport hunted. As of December 31, 2000, a total of 62
import permits, including for 3 pre-Amendment bears, had been issued
for bears sport hunted from this population by U.S. citizens. Since the
MMPA was amended in 1994 to allow for the import of certain sport-
hunted trophies, the number of bears taken in sport hunts in M'Clintock
Channel as a percentage of the total annual harvest has ranged from a
low of 29 percent (1994/1995) to a high of 59 percent in 1999/2000.
Conservation Force commented that it was important that the sport-
hunting community not be misrepresented or perceived negatively due to
the population decline in the M'Clintock Channel and the NWMB related
similar concerns from the Native community harvesters. As the NWMB
emphasized, the decline was not the fault of the community harvesters
as they have consistently adhered to their quotas, including the
allocation of bears for sport hunting. As shown in Table 1, the total
harvest of polar bears for all purposes did not exceed the annual quota
nor did sport hunting increase the number of bears taken annually over
the past 10 years.
Table 1.--Polar Bear Harvest in M'Clintock Channel
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regular Sport Problem Other Total
Season ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Quota
M F U M F U M F M F M F U T
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1989/90.......................... 20 17 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 20 17 0 37 *81
1990/91.......................... 12 15 1 ... 1 1 2 ... ... ... 14 16 2 32 *85
1991/92.......................... 24 14 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 24 14 0 38 43
1992/93.......................... 11 8 ... ... ... ... 1 ... ... ... 12 8 0 20 28
1993/94.......................... 15 6 ... ... ... ... ... 1 ... ... 15 7 0 22 32
1994/95.......................... 5 3 ... 5 ... ... ... ... 1 3 11 6 0 17 32
1995/96.......................... 11 7 ... 8 ... ... ... ... ... ... 19 7 0 26 33
1996/97.......................... 6 6 ... 15 1 ... ... ... ... ... 21 7 0 28 32
1997/98.......................... 6 6 ... 11 1 ... ... ... ... ... 17 7 0 24 34
1998/99.......................... 9 4 ... 8 1 ... ... ... ... ... 17 5 0 22 32
1999/00.......................... 6 3 ... 10 3 ... ... ... ... ... 16 6 0 22 32
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................ 125 89 1 57 7 1 3 1 1 3 186 100 2 288 .......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regular=Community subsistence hunt.
Sport=Must be guided by Native hunter, part of community quota.
M=male; F=female; U=unsexed; T=total.
*Combined quota with the Gulf of Boothia population.
The GNUN estimates that female bears comprise 65 percent of the
current sex ratio of the adult (age 3+) population in M'Clintock
Channel. This suggests that the number of adult males has been reduced,
so that any continuing harvest will likely be increasingly composed of
adult females. Protection of the female component of the population was
an important consideration in developing sustainable harvest limits.
Any additional take of females will further prolong the recovery time
for this population.
The HSUS expressed concern that the reduction in the number of
large males in this population may affect the recovery of this
population while Conservation Force asserted that sport hunting ``* * *
has had a minimal or no effect on the population reproduction.'' We
acknowledge that genetic viability, mate selection, and genetic vigor
are not well documented for polar bears, and it is unclear how the
reduction of large males affects a polar bear population. It is known
that male polar bears are opportunistic breeders and do not contribute
to the care of the young. So the loss of a male bear will generally
have less of an impact on population recruitment than the loss of a
female. Canada's selective harvest of 2 males to 1 female is utilized
to conserve the population by reducing the impact of the harvest of
females.
How Does the Change in the Finding for the M'Clintock Channel
Population Affect Me?
We are adopting the emergency interim rule as a final rule without
substantive change. The M'Clintock Channel will remain in the list of
approved populations in 50 CFR 18.30(i)(1) only for polar bears sport
hunted in this population on or before May 31, 2000, the close of the
1999/2000 Canadian hunting season. Any person who hunts in the
M'Clintock Channel population between this closure date and the date of
any future re-approval of this population will not be able to legally
import the polar bear trophy into the United States.
This action was necessary because the CWS provided us with new
information for the M'Clintock Channel polar bear population which
indicated that the population is severely reduced and harvest quotas
have not ensured a sustainable population level. The MMPA requires us
to review the best scientific information available; if we receive
substantial new information on a population, we must review it and make
a new finding as to whether to continue to approve the population. The
new information for the M'Clintock Channel population revealed that
scientifically sound quotas ensuring the maintenance of the population
at a sustainable level are not in place and that terms of the 1973
International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears, that
requires the Parties to ``manage polar bear populations in accordance
with sound conservation practices based on the best available
scientific data'' are not being met. The information also indicates
that, even with remedial steps, the population will not likely recover
for some time. We note that information received since the publication
of the emergency interim rule is not sufficient to remove our concern
that the M'Clintock Channel population has severely declined.
Conservation Force urged that we not do anything to obstruct future
re-approval of this population, and the NWMB and SCI recommended that
we reinstate the approval of the M'Clintock Channel population as soon
as possible. We will continue to work with Canada to receive the most
current data on the M'Clintock Channel polar bear population. When
substantial new scientific and management data become available that
indicate the status of this population has changed, we will review it
and make a new finding as to whether
[[Page 50848]]
the M'Clintock Channel population should be re-approved as a population
eligible for the import of sport-hunted trophies.
SCI suggested that we keep the M'Clintock Channel listed as an
approved population, subject to the lifting of the moratorium,
consistent with the approach of how we initially approved the Viscount
Melville Sound population in 1997. We do not agree for the following
reasons. There was a 5-year voluntary moratorium on the take of polar
bears in the Viscount Melville Sound population. It was lifted
effective August 1, 1999, based on recent scientific management
information Canada considered ``good.'' In contrast, the M'Clintock
Channel population has severely declined and the GNUN has indicated
that any harvest may delay the recovery of this population by more than
22 years. A reduced quota has been set for this harvest season, and the
moratorium on harvest is currently in place only for the next season.
The co-managers will use the harvest moratorium during next season to
continue discussions on what the recovery level should be for this
population and whether to allow a small quota during the recovery
period.
The MMC agrees with our determination that the M'Clintock Channel
population no longer meets the statutory criteria under which imports
may be authorized and recommends that the emergency interim rule be
adopted as a permanent rule.
What About the Approval of Other Polar Bear Populations?
The SCI urged that the Gulf of Boothia polar bear population be
added as an approved population, based on new mark-recapture data
available from the same study period (1998 to 2000) as the M'Clintock
Channel. The NWMB also suggested we work together to approve the import
of sport-hunted trophies from Nunavut polar bear populations that have
not yet been approved. We note that the approval of the Gulf of Boothia
or other polar bear populations is not the subject of this rulemaking.
You should refer to the February 18, 1997 (62 FR 7302), and January 11,
1999 (64 FR 1529), rules for more information on why these populations
were deferred. As indicated in these rulemakings, as future substantial
scientific and management data become available on these populations,
we will evaluate it to determine whether a proposed rule should be
published that would add such populations to the approved list in
Sec. 18.30(i)(1). The GNUN presented preliminary results of a 3-year
mark-recapture study for the Gulf of Boothia population at the 2001
PBTC meeting. Although they indicated that this population appears to
have remained abundant and productive, they recognize, along with the
NWMB, that additional collection and analysis of these data are
necessary before a more reliable population estimate can be made. The
continuation of the mark-recapture study is anticipated to begin as
early as spring of 2002. Except for the Gulf of Boothia population,
Nunavut shares the other deferred populations with Greenland, another
Canadian province, or both. In addition to meeting the other required
criteria, joint management agreements will need to be in place before
we can consider approval of these populations.
Why Were the Regulations Revised To Include Nunavut Territory?
This rule affirms the emergency interim rule that, besides
restricting the import of polar bears from the M'Clintock Channel
population, updated our regulations at 50 CFR 18.30 to reflect that
sport hunting of polar bears is legal in both the NWT and Nunavut
Territory and that approved populations may now fall under either the
GNWT and/or GNUN jurisdiction. Since the publication of the February
18, 1997 (62 FR 7302), and January 11, 1999 (64 FR 1529), final rules,
the Nunavut Territory, formerly part of the NWT, officially joined the
Federation of Canada on April 1, 1999. Prior to this, legal sport
hunting of polar bears in Canada took place only in the NWT; now the
majority of polar bear populations lie within or are shared with
Nunavut. All GNWT legislative laws and agreements (including the polar
bear management agreements) in place still stand in Nunavut. Inter-
jurisdictional management agreements are being drafted or revised to
reflect the change in government. Management agreements between
participating communities and the GNWT and/or the GNUN (formerly part
of GNWT), are still in effect for the approved polar bear populations.
Management of polar bear populations now falls under the Department of
Resources, Wildlife, and Economic Development (formerly the Department
of Renewable Resources), GNWT, and/or the Department of Sustainable
Development, GNUN.
What Recent Management Changes Has Canada Made for the Viscount
Melville Sound Population?
The emergency interim rule also announced that Canada has lifted
its 5-year harvest moratorium in the Viscount Melville Sound population
effective August 1, 1999. This population was added to the list of
populations approved for the import of sport-hunted polar bear trophies
in our February 18, 1997 (62 FR 7302), rulemaking, subject to the
lifting of the harvest moratorium. The current annual harvest quota is
set at 4 bears, with 1 female take allowed.
Why Has the Amendatory Language of 50 CFR 18.30 Changed?
For the reasons given in the emergency interim rule and in this
document, we are adopting the substance of the emergency interim rule.
However, we are making one, non-substantive change to the amendatory
language in the emergency interim rule. When the emergency interim rule
was published in the Federal Register on January 10, 2001 (66 FR 1901),
language in Sec. 18.30(a)(4)(iv) was inadvertently removed due to a
formatting error in the text. We are simply adding back to that
paragraph language that should not have been deleted.
Required Determinations
On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on
regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and
use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. As this rule is not
expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use,
this action is not a significant energy action and no Statement of
Energy Effects is required.
This action also affirms the information concerning the required
determinations contained in the emergency interim rule as follows:
In accordance with the criteria in Executive Order 12866, this rule
is not a significant regulatory action. The Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) makes the final determination under Executive Order 12866.
This rule will not have an annual economic effect of $100 million
or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs, the
environment, or other units of government. A cost-benefit and economic
analysis is not required. The economic effects of this rule will impact
a relatively small number of U.S. sport hunters. Since the trophies are
for personal use and may not be sold in the United States, there are no
expected market, price, or competitive effects adverse to U.S. business
interests, or to any small entity. Some incidental economic benefits
received by the travel/airline, taxidermist, and sport-hunting
industries are expected to remain unchanged by this interim rule. If an
estimated 10 U.S. citizens hunted a
[[Page 50849]]
polar bear in M'Clintock Channel, Canada, each year at a total cost of
$21,000 (US) for each hunt, then $210,000 would be expected to be
spent, mostly in Canada. Because the small number of U.S. hunters that
hunt for polar bears in M'Clintock Channel, Canada, are the only group
affected by this rule, the fact that no commercial activity in bear
products is involved, and the effect of such hunts for U.S. outfitters
and transportation services is likely to be small, this interim rule is
not expected to be a major rule and will not have a significant
economic effect.
Although we are amending our import regulations to reflect that
bears sport hunted in the M'Clintock Channel population after the close
of the 1999/2000 Canadian hunting season will no longer be eligible for
import under the 1997 finding which approved this population for
multiple harvest seasons, there are 6 other populations, including
Viscount Melville Sound, from which U.S. sport hunters will continue to
be able to import legally hunted bears. Thus, we expect there will be
no substantial loss to U.S. hunters. The revision of our regulations at
50 CFR 18.30 to include the new territory of Nunavut will have no
economic effect as we are simply updating our regulations to reflect
that populations approved for the import of sport-hunted polar bear
trophies may now fall under either GNWT and/or GNUN jurisdiction.
This rule will not create inconsistencies with other agencies'
actions. Since 1972, responsibility for implementing the MMPA has been
split between two federal agencies. Acting on behalf of the Secretary,
Department of the Interior, we have been delegated the MMPA authority
for several species of marine mammals, including the polar bear. The
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) implements the MMPA authority
of the Secretary, Department of Commerce, for whales, dolphins, and
most pinnipeds (i.e., seals and sea lions). Currently, there are no
special provisions in the MMPA for import of sport-hunted marine mammal
species other than polar bear. Since the only federal agencies with
authority for marine mammals are the NMFS and us, and the NMFS has not
been delegated MMPA authority for this species and does not have any
comparable action for other marine mammal species, this rule will not
create inconsistencies with that agency's actions.
This rule will not materially affect entitlements, grants, user
fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients.
The groups most affected by this rule are the relatively small number
of U.S. sport hunters who would have chosen to hunt polar bear in the
M'Clintock Channel population in Canada, and a comparatively small
number of U.S. outfitters, taxidermists, and personnel who provide
transportation services for travel from the United States to Canada.
The revision of our regulations at 50 CFR 18.30 to include the new
territory of Nunavut will have no effect as we are merely updating our
regulations to reflect that populations approved for the import of
sport-hunted polar bear trophies may now fall under either Government
of Northwest Territories and/or Government of Nunavut jurisdiction.
Similarly, the announcement of the lifting by Canada of a harvest
moratorium in the Viscount Melville Sound population will also have no
effect as this population was previously added to the list of
populations approved for the import of sport-hunted polar bear trophies
in our February 18, 1997 (62 FR 7302), rulemaking, subject to the
lifting of the harvest moratorium.
This rule will not raise novel legal or policy issues. This interim
rule is limited to the Service's review of new information obtained
from Canada on one polar bear population previously approved for
issuance of permits to import polar bear trophies personally sport
hunted by U.S. residents. Under section 104(c)(5)(A) of the MMPA,
before issuing a permit for the import of a polar bear trophy, we must
make certain legal and scientific findings. In a previous rule
published in 1997 [62 FR 7302], we put the public on notice that if we
receive substantial new information on a population, we would review it
and make a new finding, if necessary, after consideration of public
comment. After reviewing the new information, we find that the
M'Clintock Channel population no longer meets the import requirements
of the MMPA. Due to the dramatic change in population status, we used
an emergency interim rule to make the changes to our regulations
effective immediately. The revision of our regulations at 50 CFR 18.30
to include the new territory of Nunavut will also not raise novel legal
or policy issues as we are merely updating our regulations to reflect
that populations approved for the import of sport-hunted polar bear
trophies may now fall under either GNWT and/or GNUN jurisdiction.
Similarly, we are merely announcing Canada's lifting of the harvest
moratorium in the Viscount Melville Sound population, a population we
previously added to the list of populations approved for the import of
sport-hunted polar bear trophies in our February 18, 1997 (62 FR 7302),
rulemaking, subject to the lifting of the harvest moratorium.
The Department of the Interior certifies that this rule will not
have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small
entities as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.). An initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required.
Accordingly, a Small Entity Compliance Guide is not required. Based
upon our analysis of the factors identified above, we have determined
that no individual industries within the United States will be
significantly affected and no changes in the demography of populations
are anticipated. This rule involves the import of polar bear trophies
for personal, non-commercial use only, and therefore will have no
effect on the commercial fur trade market. Polar bear sport hunting is
not allowed within the United States. Therefore, sport hunting of polar
bears in Canada can have no effect on polar bear sport hunts in the
United States since such hunts are currently prohibited. For these
reasons, and those described under the E.O. 12866 required
determination above, we have, therefore, determined that the rule will
not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small
entities as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq., and have determined that a small entity flexibility analysis
study is not necessary.
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act:
This rule does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more. The economic effects of this rule will impact a
relatively small number of U.S. sport hunters. A total of 50 polar
bears have been taken in sport hunts from the M'Clintock Channel
between 1995 and 1999 with a range of 5 to 16 bears taken per year;
approximately 74% of sport hunters are U.S. citizens. The announcement
of the lifting by Canada of a harvest moratorium in the Viscount
Melville Sound population will have no economic effect as this
population was previously added to the list of populations approved for
the import of sport-hunted polar bear trophies in our February 18, 1997
(62 FR 7302), rulemaking, subject to the lifting of the harvest
moratorium. Since the trophies are for personal use and may not be sold
in the United States, there are no expected market, price, or
competitive effects adverse to U.S. business interests, or to any small
entity. The revision of our regulations to include
[[Page 50850]]
the new territory of Nunavut will have no economic effect as we are
merely updating our regulations to reflect the change in government
jurisdiction for populations approved for the import of sport-hunted
polar bear trophies.
This rule will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for
consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government
agencies, or geographic regions. The importation of polar bear trophies
is for personal, non-commercial use only. The small benefits gained by
U.S. outfitters and transportation services as U.S. hunters travel to
Canada will most likely remain unchanged as most sport hunters will
simply redirect their hunting efforts from the M'Clintock Channel to
one of the 6 other approved populations. The revision of our
regulations to include the new territory of Nunavut will have no effect
as we are merely updating our regulations to reflect a change in
government jurisdiction.
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States,
in the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
This rule does not have significant adverse effects on competition,
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of
U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. The
groups most affected by this rule are the extremely small number of
U.S. sport hunters who would have chosen to hunt polar bear in
M'Clintock Channel, Canada, and a small number of U.S. outfitters,
taxidermists, and personnel who provide transportation services for
travel from the United States to Canada. The importation of legally
taken sport trophies is still approved for 6 other populations from
Canada, including Viscount Melville Sound, and it is anticipated that
most sport hunters will simply redirect their hunting efforts to one of
the 6 other populations. The revision of our regulations to include the
new territory of Nunavut will have no effect as we are merely updating
our regulations to reflect a change in government jurisdiction.
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501,
et seq.):
This rule will not ``significantly or uniquely'' affect small
governments. A Small Government Agency Plan is not required. This rule
is limited to our review of new information obtained from Canada on one
polar bear population that we previously approved for issuance of
permits to import polar bear trophies personally sport hunted by U.S.
residents. We are revising our regulations to include the new territory
of Nunavut merely to reflect a change in government jurisdiction.
This rule will not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or
greater in any year, i.e., it is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the rule does not have
significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is
not required. We have determined that the rule has no potential takings
of private property implications as defined by Executive Order 12630,
for the reasons described under the Executive Order 12866 required
determination above.
The emergency interim rule placed the hunting community on
immediate notice that our 1997 finding that approved the M'Clintock
Channel population for multiple harvest seasons was no longer in effect
after May 31, 2000, the end of the 1999/2000 Canadian hunting season.
If hunters nonetheless took polar bears from this population after the
emergency rule was published, they did so with full notice that the
M'Clintock Channel population no longer met the eligibility criteria
set out in the MMPA for the issuance of import permits.
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have
significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not required
since the rule is limited to the importation of personal sport-hunted
polar bear trophies for personal (non-commercial) use, only by the
person who sport hunted the trophy.
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the
Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the
judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of the Order. This rule is limited to our review of new information
obtained from Canada on one polar bear population previously approved
for issuance of permits to import polar bear trophies personally sport
hunted by U.S. residents. Under section 104(c)(5)(A) of the MMPA,
before issuing a permit for the import of a polar bear trophy, the
Service must make certain legal and scientific findings. In a previous
rule published in 1997 (62 FR 7302), the Service told the public that
the findings that approved populations as published in the CFR are
aggregate findings applicable in subsequent years. However, it also put
the public on notice that if we receive substantial new information on
a population, we would review it and make a new finding after
consideration of public comment. After reviewing the new information,
we found that M'Clintock Channel no longer met the import requirements
of the MMPA and amended our regulations to reflect that bears sport
hunted in this population after May 31, 2000, the close of the 1999/
2000 Canadian hunting season, would no longer be eligible for import
under the 1997 finding which approved this population for multiple
harvest seasons. Due to the severe reduction in population, we used an
emergency interim rule to make the changes to our regulations effective
immediately. At the same time, we solicited comments and considered
those comments in issuing a final rule.
This regulation does not contain new or revised information for
which OMB approval is required under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The information collection associated
with Federal Fish and Wildlife permits is covered by an existing OMB
approval, and is assigned clearance number 1018-0093, Form 3-200-45,
with an expiration date of March 31, 2004. Details of the information
collection requirements for the import of sport-hunted polar bear
trophies appear at Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section
18.30(a). We may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
We have analyzed this rule in accordance with the criteria of the
National Environmental Policy Act. The Department of the Interior has
determined that the issuance of this action is categorically excluded
under the Department's NEPA procedures in Part 516 of the Department
Manual, Chapter 2, Appendix 1.10.
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments'' (59 FR 22951) and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated possible
effects on Federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that
there are no effects. The rule is limited to our review of new
information obtained from Canada on the M'Clintock Channel polar bear
population. Polar bear sport hunting is not allowed within the United
States. Therefore, sport hunting of polar bears in Canada can have no
effect on polar bear sport hunts in the United States since such hunts
are currently prohibited.
[[Page 50851]]
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 18
Administrative practice and procedure, Alaska, Imports, Indians,
Marine mammals, Oil and gas exploration, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, the emergency interim rule amending part 18,
subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations
and that was published at 66 FR 1901 on January 10, 2001, is adopted as
a final rule with the following changes:
PART 18--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 18 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.
2. Amend Sec. 18.30 by revising paragraph (a)(4)(iv) to read as
follows:
Sec. 18.30 Polar bear sport-hunted trophy import permits.
(a) * * *
(4) * * *
(iv) A certification from the Department of Resources, Wildlife,
and Economic Development, Northwest Territories, or the Department of
Sustainable Development, Nunavut Territory, that you or the decedent
legally harvested the polar bear, giving the tag number, location
(settlement and population), and season you or the decedent took the
bear;
* * * * *
Dated: September 4, 2001.
Joseph E. Doddridge,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Department of
the Interior.
[FR Doc. 01-24947Filed 10-4-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P